1 / 11

Paris, August 2005

Paris, August 2005. IETF 63 rd – netlmm BOF. Requirements and Gap Analysis for IP Local Mobility (draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00). Gerardo Giaretta James Kempf Phil Roberts Kent Leung Katsutoshi Nishida Marco Liebsch. Purpose of the document. The I-D has two main objectives

gay-moses
Télécharger la présentation

Paris, August 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Paris, August 2005 IETF 63rd – netlmm BOF Requirements and Gap Analysis for IP Local Mobility (draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00) Gerardo Giaretta James Kempf Phil Roberts Kent Leung Katsutoshi Nishida Marco Liebsch

  2. Purpose of the document • The I-D has two main objectives • list the requirements for a NETLMM solution • highlight the gaps between state-of the art solutions and requirements • Solutions identified so far • Mobile IPv6 with local HA assignment • Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) • Combinations of Mobile IPv6 with optimizations • MIPv6 with local HA assignment + FMIPv6 • HMIPv6 + FMIPv6 • Micromobility Protocols (e.g. Cellular IP, HAWAII)

  3. NETLMM Requirements • Req #1 – Handover performance improvement • handover packet loss and handover latency must be minimized • this is to fulfill requirements of real-time applications on jitter, delay and packet loss • Req #2 – Reduction in handover-related signaling volume • signaling volume to handle handover should be minimized • e.g. movement detection signaling, location update signaling, security-related signaling

  4. NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #3 – Location privacy • location informationshould not be revealed to nor deduced by the correspondent node without the authorization of the MN • draft-koodli-mip6-location-privacy-01 • Req #4 – Efficient use of wireless resources • minimization of per packet overhead over the air interface • state of the art so LMM solutions increase packet size over the air by adding tunneling or other per packet overhead • header compression can remove header overhead but it increases the cost and complexity of the access points (i.e. higher per packet processing across the wireless link)

  5. NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #5 – Reduction of signaling overhead in the network • signaling within the wired network should be minimized • this is mainly for reducing cost of laying fiber or wiring to the wireless access points in a widely dispersed geographic area

  6. NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #6 – No extra security between mobile node and network • LMM protocols involving signaling between host and network require additional SAs between the host and one or more network entities • establishing a SA specifically for LMM may require extra signaling • establishing a SA specifically for LMM may be difficultin a roaming scenario (i.e. potential barrier ro deployment) • removing host involvement also limits the possibility of DoS attacks on network infrastructure elements

  7. NETLMM Requirements (cont’d) • Req #7 – Support for heterogeneous wireless link technologies • handover between different wireless link technologies • Req #8 – Support for unmodified hosts • no host software installationon the user terminal • extremely successful in the WLAN switching market • enables a service provider to offer service to all customers • multiple global mobility management protocols can be supported • Req #9 – Support for IPv4 and IPv6

  8. Main gaps for current solutions • Mobile IPv6 with local HA (+ FMIPv6) • FMIPv6 is needed (req #1) • high signaling volume if route optimization is used (req #2) • FMIPv6 requires additional signaling • location privacy only with bi-directional tunneling (req #3) • if no RO, over-the-air tunnel to the HA (req #4) • further temporary level of tunneling between MN and PAR in FMIPv6 • bootstrapping a SA with a local HA is needed (req #6) • FMIPv6 requires an additional SA with the ARs • host support for MIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #8) • IPv4 support needed for both MIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #9) • miptrans DT in mip6/nemo WGs

  9. Main gaps for current solutions (cont’d) • HMIPv6 + FMIPv6 • FMIPv6 is needed since HMIPv6 only partially shortens handover latency (req #1) • HMIPv6 reduces handover related signaling volume since no RO signaling is done for intra-MAP handovers (req #2) • FMIPv6 still requires additional signaling • tunneling between MN and MAP (req #4) • further temporary level of tunneling between MN and PAR in FMIPv6 • SAs needed between MN and MAP (for HMIPv6) and MN and AR (for FMIPv6) (req #6) • host support for HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #8) • IPv4 support needed for both HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 (req #9)

  10. Main gaps for current solutions (cont’d) • Micromobility protocols • host route propagation is required throughout the wired network (req #5) • most of the requirements are fulfilled • potential drawbacks from a deployment and scalability standpoint • involve every routing element between the MN and the LMM domain boundary router in all packet forwarding decisions • scalability is limited because each care of address corresponding to a MN generates a routing table entry

  11. Summary

More Related